Man City Penalty Should Not Have Been Given – Panel

Manchester City’s first penalty in their 5-1 win over Wolves should not have been awarded, an independent panel has said.

Wolves defender Rayan Ait-Nouri was penalised after colliding with City defender Josko Gvardiol in the area.

A five-person Key Match Incident Panel voted by a 3-2 majority that referee Craig Pawson should not have given a spot-kick.

However, it unanimously agreed the video assistant referee was correct not to intervene.

Erling Haaland converted the penalty and went on to score four goals, including a second spot-kick, in the win at Etihad Stadium.

The Key Match Incident Panel is independent and made up of three former players or coaches, one Premier League representative and one from the Professional Game Match Officials Board, the referees’ body.

It reviews the big refereeing decisions from each Premier League round of fixtures.

When reviewing the Ait-Nouri-Gvardiol incident, the majority of the panel deemed the on-field decision incorrect because it was a “coming together due to the normal actions of both players and the challenge is not reckless”.

Two panellists disagreed and thought it was a foul by Ait-Nouri, though all five agreed there were “not sufficient grounds” for intervention by VAR.

Other incidents reviewed included the decision to disallow Antoine Semenyo’s goal for Bournemouth in their 3-0 defeat at Arsenal for a push by striker Dominic Solanke on goalkeeper David Raya in the build-up.

The panel was split 3-2 in support of referee David Coote’s decision, saying: “The attacker leans into the goalkeeper, briefly hooks round his arm and impacts the goalkeeper.”

The two panellists who disagreed argued “the degree of contact does not impact the goalkeeper’s ability to continue with his action and clear the ball”.

The panel voted 5-0 that VAR was correct not to intervene as it was not a “clear and obvious error”.

The panel was also split 3-2 in support of the decision to award a penalty to Arsenal for a foul by goalkeeper Mark Travers on Kai Havertz earlier in the same game.

Those in support said Travers came out “feet first, doesn’t win the ball and fouls the attacker”, with those disagreeing arguing “Havertz leaves his leg in the challenge to initiate contact and has time to jump to evade the challenge”.

They also voted 5-0 that VAR should have intervened.